Council denies permit for south side dog kennel

Because of neighbors’ opposition, super majority was required to approve the request

Amy Adams, director of Bully Beds Inc., talks 08/09/18 about the City of Midland compliance issue for the pitbull rescue facility. Tim Fischer/Reporter-Telegram

Amy Adams, director of Bully Beds Inc., talks 08/09/18 about the City of Midland compliance issue for the pitbull rescue facility. Tim Fischer/Reporter-Telegram

Photo: Tim Fischer/Midland Reporter-Telegram

Photo: Tim Fischer/Midland Reporter-Telegram

Image
1of/3

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 3

Amy Adams, director of Bully Beds Inc., talks 08/09/18 about the City of Midland compliance issue for the pitbull rescue facility. Tim Fischer/Reporter-Telegram

Amy Adams, director of Bully Beds Inc., talks 08/09/18 about the City of Midland compliance issue for the pitbull rescue facility. Tim Fischer/Reporter-Telegram

Photo: Tim Fischer/Midland Reporter-Telegram

Council denies permit for south side dog kennel

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

Letters of objections from neighbors helped shut down a no-kill sanctuary for dogs on Midland’s south side.

Before discussion took place on whether to provide a specific use permit for operators of a kennel -- known as Bully Beds – city leaders were told that neighbors submitted a sufficient number of letters of objection that a super majority was required to approve the request.

The Midland City Council couldn’t muster that high standard as three council members – John Love III, Sharla Hotchkiss and Spencer Robnett – voted against a compromise offered by Councilman Scott Dufford to give the operators 90 days to sell their property in the 1500 block of Carter Avenue.

Love, Hotchkiss and Robnett said that the kennel operators had their chances, disregarded city laws and stirred the pot on social media long enough, and a compromise wasn’t in the best interest of the community.

The council’s ruling was a 180-degree turn from what the city’s Planning and Zoning had approved – by a 4-to-1 vote – and even went against a city staff proposal. The proposal had six conditions, including that the city manager could revoke the permit if the property owner failed to comply with any provision of the ordinance.

What remains to be seen is what will happen with the 43 dogs that were kept at the kennel units on the property. Robnett told the owners “nobody is coming to get the dogs tomorrow.” No specifics were shared during the meeting about the fate of the animals, but officials said the city would help to find homes for the dogs that are adoptable.

“We want to help Bully Beds, but this has been going on too long and is not working,” Robnett said.

Love, Hotchkiss and Robnett were bothered by the owners’ alleged reluctancy to provide information about the animals at Bully Beds. City officials said they didn’t have the required records of the animals on that property, while kennel officials said they had handed that information to Animal Control in 2018.

On numerous occasions, the council acknowledged the owners’ passion for their animals and their mission. Operators claimed animals at their kennels were cared for better than what has been reported at the city’s animal shelter. They also said they were looking to sell their property inside the city and move to a location outside city limits.

Dufford’s compromise was going to be a window to give operators a little time. However, the fact that a majority of the council -- Dufford, J.Ross Lacy, Michael Trost and Mayor Jerry Morales -- voted for the specific use permit wasn’t enough. The letters of opposition required that six of the seven council members present approve the item. Even before the vote took place, it was obvious the support wasn’t there.